Leave the World Behind 1st Edition

Rumaan Alam
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/leave-the-world-behind-1st-edition-rumaan-alam/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Leave The World Behind 2020th Edition Rumaan Alam

https://ebookmeta.com/product/leave-the-world-behind-2020th-
edition-rumaan-alam/

The Worlds We Leave Behind 1st Edition A.F. Harrold

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-worlds-we-leave-behind-1st-
edition-a-f-harrold/

The World We ll Leave Behind Grasping the

Sustainability Challenge 1st Edition William Scott And
Paul Vare

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-world-we-ll-leave-behind-
grasping-the-sustainability-challenge-1st-edition-william-scott-
and-paul-vare/

Design for Resilience: Making the Future We Leave

Behind 8th Edition Stuart Walker

https://ebookmeta.com/product/design-for-resilience-making-the-
future-we-leave-behind-8th-edition-stuart-walker/
Leave no man behind First Diversion Books Edition.
Edition Tony Brooks■Bob Welch

https://ebookmeta.com/product/leave-no-man-behind-first-
diversion-books-edition-edition-tony-brooks%ef%bc%9bbob-welch/

What People Leave Behind Marks Traces Footprints And

their Relevance To Knowledge Society 1st Edition
Francesca Comunello

https://ebookmeta.com/product/what-people-leave-behind-marks-
traces-footprints-and-their-relevance-to-knowledge-society-1st-
edition-francesca-comunello/

The World Behind the World: - Consciousness, Free Will,

And The Limits Of Science Erik Hoel

https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-world-behind-the-world-
consciousness-free-will-and-the-limits-of-science-erik-hoel/

Unforgotten in the Gulf of Tonkin A Story of the U S

Military s Commitment to Leave No One Behind 1st
Edition Eileen A Bjorkman

https://ebookmeta.com/product/unforgotten-in-the-gulf-of-tonkin-
a-story-of-the-u-s-military-s-commitment-to-leave-no-one-
behind-1st-edition-eileen-a-bjorkman/

Behind The Mask 1st Edition Kameron Claire

https://ebookmeta.com/product/behind-the-mask-1st-edition-
kameron-claire/
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
light has visited the mind of some victim of poverty, and he thinks it
lawful to bring home the Christian bounty to save the lives of his
starving children, fear prevents him. Perhaps his wife is still
enveloped in all the darkness of superstition, and would spurn the
proffered relief as an unclean thing, or perhaps his children might
innocently betray him, and draw down all the weight of rabbinic
indignation. A grosser insult has rarely been offered to the Majesty of
heaven, than to call good and proper food, the work of his hands,
carrion. A mistake in the slaughtering, an ignorance of the rabbinic
art, a Gentile hand, is to be sufficient to turn the bounty of Almighty
God into an unclean thing, and to deprive the poor of their daily food.
How can the Jews expect God’s blessing so long as this state of
things continues—how can they be surprised if poverty and want,
and wretchedness and scorn, tread close upon their heels, when
they themselves spurn God’s bounty from them with disdain? As
nations deal with God and his word, so he deals with them, ‫מדה‬
‫כמדה‬, measure for measure; and therefore, so long as the oral law
teaches them to scorn his bounty, and to deprive the poor of their
food—so long as the cries of the poor ascend and enter into the ears
of the Lord of Hosts, so long must they expect to feel the rod of his
indignation. The times of ignorance and superstition God winked at;
but those times have passed away. Good or bad, there is a stir in the
world—there is a shaking of all old opinions, true and false; and from
its effects the Jews have not escaped. There are many who, for
themselves and their families, have renounced Rabbinism—who eat
Gentile food, and know that in doing so they commit no sin. These
are the persons who are most guilty in looking upon the misery of
their poor brethren without pity or concern and without an effort to
deliver them. The rabbinic zealot who would persecute his brother
for eating meat not slaughtered according to rabbinic precept is in
comparison innocent. He conscientiously thinks that he is doing
right; but for the man, who himself openly transgresses the oral law,
and yet sees the faces of his brethren ground by that system, without
a sentiment of pity, there is no excuse. If he had the common
feelings of humanity, he would rise up, fearless of all consequences,
and cry out with all his might against those principles which have
been and are the curse of his nation. He would stand forth as the
advocate and defender of the poor—yea, and he would have God’s
blessing. But so long as this class of anti-rabbinic Jews remain
silent, whether from fear or from interest, or from indifference, let
them not boast of their superior light. Let them not look with self-
complacency on the poor victims of superstition. They are
themselves less respectable and more guilty. They are conniving at
what they know to be falsehood. They are with their eyes open
consenting to oppression and starvation. They are, by their silence,
helping to strengthen and confirm a system of anti-social intolerance,
which has been the source of all the calamities which their nation
has endured for eighteen centuries. What can be more pernicious
than to teach the ignorant that the food which their neighbours eat is
carrion, so unfit for the nourishment of a Rabbinist that he ought to
die, and suffer his family to die of want, rather than eat it? Is it likely
to produce kindly feeling on either side, considering that the mass of
mankind is not actuated by the dictates of reason or the precepts of
the Bible? On the one side it is likely to produce proud contempt, and
on the other a spirit of retaliation. Every Jew that wishes well to his
nation, and knows that these rabbinic principles are false, is bound
to protest against them. He ought not to be a poor selfish thing,
insensible to the wants and the sufferings of others, but should do
what in him lies, to assert what he knows to be the truth. And is it
necessary to remind such of the misery which these rabbinic
principles are still working in every part of the world? Here in London
the poor are suffering. In the various towns of England many Jews
are suffering. In some places a single Jewish family is found,
generally poor, and the father ignorant of the rabbinic art of
slaughtering: such persons are compelled to abstain altogether from
animal food, or to do violence to their conscience. The poor Jews
who go out to the colonies to seek employment are in the same
case, and are precluded from taking such situations as require them
to partake of the food of their employers. Even if they can buy an
animal, they are not allowed to kill it for themselves:—
‫ישראל שאינו יודע חמשה דברים שמפסידין את השחיטה וכיוצא בהן מהלכות‬
‫שחיטה שביארנו ושחט בינו לבין עצמו אסור לאכול משחיטתו לא הוא ולא אחרים‬
‫ והרי זו קרובה לספק נבלה והאוכל ממנה כזית מכין אותו מכת מרדות ׃‬,
“If an Israelite does not know the five things which invalidate the act
of slaughtering, as we have explained, and slaughters by himself, it
is unlawful to eat of his slaughtering, both for himself and others; for
this case is much the same as that of doubtful carrion, and he that
eats of it a quantity equal to an olive, is to be flogged with the
flogging of rebellion.” (Ibid., c. iv.) Such is the mercy of the oral law,
and such its justice. It punishes the eating of what God has allowed,
with the same severity that it would visit a great crime. It makes no
provision for those numerous cases of distress which we have
mentioned. Whether one of its disciples has or has not food, it never
considers. Without reflection and without mercy it sentences every
one, who eats meat not rabbinically slaughtered, to be flogged. But,
besides the cruelty, what is the effect upon the minds of its votaries?
It teaches them that to transgress this mere human observance is a
sin of the deepest die, more dreadful far than many which God has
forgiven. A Rabbinist would be more grieved to hear that his son had
transgressed the law of slaughtering, than to find that he had been
guilty of falsehood. Its tendency is directly to draw off the mind from
the weightier matters of the law, judgment, justice, and mercy, and to
flatter the ill-informed that they are good Jews, if only they abstain
from meat not slaughtered according to rabbinic art.
Let not any Jew imagine that we wish him lightly to transgress the
law of Moses, or to eat of food which the law of God has forbidden.
We now speak of that which Moses has allowed. If a Jew would see
meat offered to idols, or be invited to partake of an idolatrous feast,
let him abstain—let him refuse, and protest as strongly as he will and
can against the sinfulness of such conduct. But where does Moses
forbid the poor to partake of meat slaughtered by a Gentile
worshipper of the true God, or by an Israelite who has not learned
the rabbinic art? Certainly not in that passage to which the oral law
refers. Moses gives a general permission to every Israelite, without
exception, to kill and eat. “Notwithstanding thou mayest kill and eat
flesh in all thy gates, whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, according to
the blessing of the Lord thy God which he hath given thee.” (Deut.
xii. 15.) He makes no mention of any mysteries, connected with the
art of slaughtering, the ignorance of which would disqualify. Why
then should a Jew be prevented from doing what Moses has allowed
—why should he be flogged with the flogging of rebellion, or avow
that that mode and measure of punishment is impracticable—why
should he be persecuted for satisfying the cravings of nature, and
endeavouring to supply the wants of his family? There is not room
now to show fully how groundless the rabbinic commands are; but
the one fact of their cruelty and oppression of the poor is sufficient to
show that they are not from God. Is it possible that any man in his
senses can believe that God would sentence a poor famishing
creature to be flogged without mercy for doing what the letter of the
law allows him to do? or, that the All-wise Being, who foresees and
foreknows all things, would give a system of laws respecting food,
which must expose a large portion of his chosen people to want and
starvation? The worshippers of some cruel heathen deity might
possibly be led to believe such things, but the disciples or Moses
and the Prophets know that God is a God of mercy. Let, then, every
one who has got the sacred books contrast their doctrines with those
of the rabbies. But, above all, let those Israelites, who reject the
rabbinic laws concerning the slaughtering of meat, show that they
have not done it from levity nor indifference, but upon principle. Let
them explain to their brethren the reasons and the motives by which
they are actuated, and let them protest, by word and deed, against
such cruelty, oppression, and intolerance.
 No. L.
THE BIRTH OF MESSIAH.

This season of the year naturally draws away our thoughts from the
subject last under consideration, and reminds us of a remarkable
difference between Jews and Christians. The latter are now about to
commemorate the birth of the Messiah.[36] In two days more the
voice of praise and thanksgiving will ascend to the Creator and
Preserver of men from every part of the world. On the frozen shores
of Labrador, and the glowing plains of Hindostan—in the isles of the
sea, and on the continents of the old and new worlds, millions of
Christians will lift up their hands and voices to thank the God of
heaven for his unspeakable gift, and this shall be the burden of their
song, “Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the
government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called
Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the
Prince of Peace.” (Isaiah ix. 6.) But amongst the followers of the oral
law not a sound of sympathy will be heard. Not a single heart will
beat with joy, not a tongue offer up the tribute of praise. Here is a
great and sinking difference, that should naturally lead both Jew and
Christian to inquire, Who is in the right: Those who believe that
Messiah is born, and joy in the remembrance of his nativity; or, those
who refuse to join in the general rejoicing, and deny that the
Redeemer has appeared? The question is whether there is reason to
believe that the Messiah was born eighteen hundred years ago? and
there are several ways in which it can be satisfactorily answered. An
appeal may be made to the predictions contained in the Old
Testament, or to the evidence for the truth of the Christian Scriptures
—or, it may be shown that the Jewish rabbies have plainly confessed
that the time for the birth and appearance of the Messiah is long
since past; and this is the mode which we shall adopt at present. The
Jews now deny that Messiah is come, and consequently believe that
Christians are mistaken as to the time of his appearing. If they had
always said so—if they had always assigned a time for the coming of
Messiah different from that in which Christians think the Messiah
was born, their present assertion would have at least the merit of
consistency, and the Jews of the present day might urge that their
present belief has been inherited from their fathers, and that
Christians have adopted a notion unknown to the nation at large.
But, if it should appear that the ancient Jews expected the coming of
Messiah at the very time, when, as Christians say, he did actually
come, then the ancient Jews testify that Christians are in the right,
and that modern Jews are in the wrong, and this is really the state of
the case. In the first place, the Talmud contains a general declaration
that the time is long since past:—
‫אמר רב כלו כל הקצין ׃‬
“Rav says, The appointed times are long since past” (Sanhedrin, fol.
97, col. 2), where it is to be noted that the word ‫ קץ‬is taken from
Daniel, and literally signifies “End,” as it is said:—
‫עד מתי קץ הפלאות ׃‬
“How long shall it be to the end of these wonders; and again:—
‫ואתה לך לקץ ותנוח ותעמוד לגורלך לקץ הימין ׃‬
“But go thou thy way till the end be, for thou shalt rest, and stand in
thy lot at the end of the days.” (Daniel xii. 6-13.) Rav was therefore of
opinion that the period appointed by Daniel the prophet was past.
But is it possible to believe that the God of truth would suffer the
time, which he had appointed, to pass away without accomplishing
what he had promised? When the time which God had fixed for the
deliverance from Egypt had arrived, not a single day was lost. “It
came to pass at the end ‫ קץ‬of the four hundred and thirty years, even
the self-same day,
‫בעצם היום הזה ׃‬
it came to pass, that all the hosts of the Lord went out from the land
of Egypt.” (Exod. xii. 41.) When the period fixed for the return from
Babylon was come, we read, “In the first year of Cyrus, King of
Persia (that the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah might be
accomplished), the Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia,
that he made a proclamation through all his kingdom.” (2 Chron.
xxxvi. 22.) And can we think that the Lord God, who so graciously
fulfilled his word on these occasions should break it with reference to
the coming of the Messiah? Rav is either right or wrong. If he be
right, then the time fixed by God is long since past, and as God
cannot break his word, the Messiah must have come long since. But
if, to get out of a difficulty, the Rabbinists say, that Rav was wrong,
then we have another proof that no reliance is to be placed on the
doctors of the oral law; indeed we have a proof that the Rabbinists
themselves do not believe it, except when they like; and that
therefore they are not thoroughly in earnest about their religion.
But, secondly, the ancient Jews not only believed that the time for
the coming of the Messiah was past: they also fixed the exact period:
—
, ‫ שני אלפים תורה‬, ‫תנא דבי אליהו ששה אלפים שנה הוי עלמא שני אלפים תוהו‬
‫שני אלפים ימות המשיח ׃‬
“Tradition of the school of Elijah. The world is to stand six thousand
years. Two thousand, confusion. Two thousand, the law. Two
thousand, the days of Messiah.” (Sanhedrin, fol. 97, col. 1.) Upon
which Rashi remarks—
‫שלאחר שני אלפים תורה הוה דינו שיבוא משיח ותכלה מלכות הרשעה ויבטל‬
‫השיעבוד מישראל ׃‬
“After the two thousand years of the law, according to the decree.
Messiah ought to have come, and the wicked kingdom should been
destined, and Israel’s state of servitude should have been ended.”
Here, then, it is expressly stated, that Messiah ought to have come
at the end of the fourth thousand years, that is, according to the
Jewish reckoning, fifteen hundred and ninety-seven years ago; or,
according to the Christian reckoning, about eighteen hundred and
thirty-six years ago—that is, at the very time when Jesus of Nazareth
did appear. We do not quote this tradition because we believe that it
is really a tradition of the school of Elijah, but to show what was the
opinion of the more ancient Jews, and this it certainly does, if the
general expectation of the Jews at that time had not been that
Messiah was to appear at the end of the four thousand years, this
tradition, whether genuine or forged, could never have obtained
currency nor belief. If it be a genuine tradition from Elijah, then the
Messiah is certainly come. But if it be fictitious, then it shows the
general belief of the Jews at the time, and in every case proves that
the modern Jews do not hold the doctrines of their forefathers, but
have got a new doctrine of their own. And it further shows, that
Christians do not hold any new or peculiar opinion about the time of
Messiah’s coming, but that they believe, as the ancient Jews
believed, that the end of the fourth thousand years is the right time of
Messiah’s coming.
The only answer that the Jews have, is, that the promise of
Messiah’s coming was conditional upon their repentance, but that
evasion has been long since refuted in the Talmud as contrary to
Scripture:—
‫ אמר לו ר׳‬, ‫ר׳ אליעזר אומר אם ישראל עושין תשובה נגאלין ואם לאו אינם נגאלין‬
‫יהושע אם אין עושין תשובה אינם נגאלין אלא הקב׳׳ה מעמיד להן מלך שגזרותיו‬
‫ תניא אידך ר׳ אליעזר אומר‬, ‫קשות כהמן וישראל עושין תשובה ומחזירן למוטב‬
, ‫ שנאמר שובו בנים שובבים ארפא משובותיכם‬, ‫אם ישראל עושין תשובה נגאלין‬
‫אמר לו ר׳ יהושע והלא כבר נאמר חנם נמכרתם ולא בכסף תגאלו חנם נמכרתם‬
‫ אמר לו ר׳ אליעזר‬, ‫בעבודה זרה ולא בכסף תגאלו לא בתשובה ומעשים טובים‬
‫ אמר לו ר׳ יהושע והלא‬, ‫לר׳ יהושע והלא כבר נאמר שובה אלי ואשובה אליכם‬
‫כבר נאמר כי אנכי בעלתי אתכם ולקחתי אתכם אחד מעיר ושנים ממשפחה‬
‫ אמר לו ר׳ אליעזר והלא כבר נאמר בשובה ונחת תושעון אמר‬, ‫והבאתי אתכם ציו‬
‫לו ר׳ יהושע לר׳ אליעזר והלא כבר נאמר כה אמר ה׳ גואל ישראל וקדושו לבזה‬
‫ אמר לו ר׳‬, ‫נפש למתעב גוי לעבד מושלים מלכים יראו וקמו שרים וישתחוו‬
‫אֻליעזר והלא כבר נאמר אם תשוב ישראל נאם ה׳ אלי תשוב אמר לו ר׳ יהושע‬
‫והלא כבר נאמר ואשמע את האיש לבוש הבדים אשר ממעל למימי היאר וירם‬
‫ימינו ושמאלו אל השמים נפץ יד עם קודש תכלינה כל אלה וגו׳ ושתק ר׳ אליעזר ׃‬
“R. Eliezer said, If Israel do repentance they will be redeemed, but, if
not, they will not be redeemed. R. Joshua replied, If they do not
repent they will not be redeemed: but God will raise up to them a
king whose decrees shall be as dreadful as Haman, and then Israel
will repent, and thus he will bring them back to what is good. Another
tradition. R. Eliezer said, If Israel do repentance, they shall be
redeemed, for it is said, ‘Turn, O backsliding children; I will heal your
backsliding.’ R. Joshua replied, But was it not said long since, ‘Ye
have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without
money,’ (Isaiah lii. 3.) Where the words ‘sold for nought’ mean, for
idolatry; and the words ‘redeemed without money,’ signify, not for
money and good works. R. Eliezer then said, to R. Joshua, But has it
not been said long since, ‘Return unto me, and I will return unto you.’
(Mal. iii. 7.) R. Joshua replied, But has it not been said long since, ‘I
am married unto you, and I will take you one of a city, and two of a
family, and I will bring you to Zion.’ (Jer. iii. 14.) R. Eliezer said, But
has it not been written long since, ‘In returning and rest ye shall be
saved.’ (Isaiah xxx. 15.) R. Joshua replied to R. Eliezer, But has it
not been said long since, ‘Thus saith the Lord, the Redeemer of
Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom
the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers, kings shall see and arise,
princes also shall worship.’ (Isaiah xlix. 7.) R. Eliezer said to him
again, But has it not been said long since, ‘If thou wilt return, O
Israel, return unto me.’ (Jer. iv. 1.) To which R. Joshua replied, But
has it not been written long since, ‘I heard the man clothed in linen,
which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right
hand and his left hand unto heaven, and swore by Him that liveth for
ever, that it shall be for a time and times and half a time; and when
he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people,
all these things shall be finished.’ Whereupon R. Eliezer was silent.”
Here then, on the showing of the Talmud itself, the opinion that the
coming of the Messiah is dependent upon Israel’s repentance, is
false; and consequently it is true, that Messiah was to come
unconditionally at the time appointed; and therefore, as the time is
long since past, the Messiah must have come. But the ancient
rabbies do not leave us to reason upon their words; on the contrary,
they tell us expressly that Messiah was born about the time that the
temple was destroyed. In the Jerusalem Talmud, R. Judan tells us a
story of a Jew who actually went and saw him:—
‫עובדא הוה בחד יהודאי דהוה קאים רדי געת תורתיה קומוי עבר חד ערביי ושמע‬
, ‫ אמר ליה בר יודאי בר יודאי שרי תורך ושרי קנקנך דהא חרב בית מקדשא‬, ‫קלה‬
‫ אמר ליה בר יודאי בר יודאי קטור תורך וקטור קנקנך דהא יליד‬, ‫געת זמן תניינות‬
‫ אמר ליה ומה שם דאבוי‬, ‫ אמר ליה מה שמיה אמר ליה מנחם‬, ‫מלכא משיחא‬
‫ אמר ליה מן בירת מלכא דבית לחם‬, ‫ אמר ליה םן הן הוא‬, ‫אמר ליה חזקיהו‬
‫יהודה ׃‬
“It happened once to a certain Jew, who was standing ploughing,
that his cow lowed before him. A certain Arab was passing and
heard its voice; he said, O Jew, O Jew! unyoke thine ox, and loose
thy plough-share, for the temple has been laid waste. It lowed a
second time, and he said, O Jew, O Jew! yoke thine oxen, and bind
on thy plough-shares, for King Messiah is born. The Jew said, What
is his name? Menachem. He asked further, What is the name of his
father? The other replied, Hezekiah. He asked again, Whence is he?
The other said from the Royal residence of Bethlehem of Judah.”
(Berachoth, fol. 5, col. 1.) The story, then, goes on to tell us how he
went and saw the child, but when he called the second time, the
mother told him that the winds had carried the child away. We are
quite willing to grant that this story is a fable. We do not quote it
because we give it the slightest degree of credit, but simply to show
that the more ancient Jews were so fully persuaded that the right
time of Messiah’s advent was past, that they readily believed also
that he was actually born. The Babylonian Talmud, also, evidently
takes for granted that Messiah is born, as appears from the following
legend:—
‫ר׳ יהושע בן לוי אשכחיה לאליהו דהוה קיים אפיתחא דמערתא דר׳ שמעון בן‬
‫ אמר ר׳‬, ‫יוחאי אמר ליה אתינא לעלמא דאתי אמר ליה אם ירצה האדון הזה‬
‫ אמר ליה אימת אתי משיח אמר ליה זיל‬, ‫יהושע בן לוי שנים ראיתי וקול ג׳ שמעתי‬
‫שייליה לדידיה והיכא יתיב אפיתחא דרומי ומאי סימניה יתיב ביני עניים סובלי‬
‫חלאים וכולן שרו ואסירי בחד זמנא איהו שרי חד ואסיר חד אמר דילמא מבעינא‬
‫דלא איעכב אזל לגביה אמר ליה שלים עליך רבי ומורי אמו ליה שלום עליך בר‬
‫ליואי אמר ליה לאימת אתי מר אמר ליה היום ׃‬
“R. Joshua, the son of Levi, found Elijah standing at the door of the
cave of R. Simeon ben Jochai, and said to him, Shall I arrive at the
world to come? He replied, If this Lord will. R. Joshua, the son of
Levi, said, I see two, but I hear the voice of three. He also asked,
When will Messiah come? Elijah replied, Go, and ask himself. R.
Joshua then said, Where does he sit? At the gate of Rome. And how
is he to be known? He is sitting amongst the poor and sick, and they
open their wounds and bind them up again all at once: but he opens
only one, and then he opens another, for he thinks, perhaps I may be
wanted, and then I must not be delayed. R. Joshua went to him and
said, Peace be upon thee, my master and my Lord. He replied,
Peace be upon thee, son of Levi. The rabbi then asked him, When
will my Lord come? He replied, To-day (alluding to the words of the
Psalm, To-day, if ye will hear his voice).” (Sanhedrin, fol. 98, col. 1.)
This is evidently a fiction, and a proof how little those doctors
regarded truth; but it shows that he who invented it, and those who
received it, all equally believed that Messiah was born, and ready
waiting to come forth for the redemption of Israel. It does, indeed,
confirm the common idea, that Messiah’s advent depends upon the
repentance of Israel, for it makes the Messiah say that he would
come this very day, if Israel would only hear his voice. But if the
Messiah may any day, when they repent, come and save Israel, then
it is plain that he must have been born long since. The testimony of
the ancient Jews, then, goes to establish these points—First, That
the time for Messiah’s advent has been long past; Secondly, That
the end of the fourth thousand years was the time when he ought to
have come: and, Thirdly, That at that time he did really come; for
about that time, they say, he was born in Bethlehem of Judah.
Fourth, That he was taken into Paradise, as Rashi explains the gate
of Rome to mean the gate of Paradise opposite Rome; and, Fifthly,
That he is waiting to return to this earth for the redemption of his
people. Now who is there that does not see at once, that this agrees
in the main with the Christian doctrine? We believe that, at the end of
the fourth thousand years, the Messiah was born, and at this season
of the year we rejoice at the remembrance of the Saviour’s birth. The
Jews refuse to join with us, but who has the greatest show of right?
Not now to speak of the prophecies, and of the historical evidence
which we have, we have the testimony even of our opponents to
show that we are in the right. The most ancient rabbinical writings
unanimously confess, that the time is past, and that the Messiah has
been long since born, and thus testify the correctness of our faith
respecting the time of Messiah’s advent. Christians, however, go on
consistently and believe further, that God did not break his word, but
performed his promise, and therefore we rejoice. The Jews do not
believe, because they are so engrossed with the temporal
deliverance of the nation, that they cannot see that another and a
greater redemption was necessary. We do not, by any means, wish
to deny that Israel is to be restored to the land of promise, and to
inherit all the blessings promised in the prophets. On the contrary,
we fully believe that the Messiah, who visited this earth, for a short
season, will return and re-establish the Theocracy which was once
the glory of Israel, and that, in a much more glorious form than Israel
ever saw under any of their kings. We heartily wish Israel the
enjoyment of every blessing promised; but we cannot help
remembering that Messiah has another and more important office
than that of restoring the kingdom to Israel, and that is the
redemption of the human race. The highest pitch of national glory
and earthly prosperity would be as nothing, and less than nothing
unless the children of men were delivered from the effects of Adam’s
sin, and made partakers of a good hope of everlasting life. Even the
gathering of Israel from all the ends of the earth would appear but a
very insignificant business, if it did not stand in immediate connexion
with the eternal welfare of all nations. Many of the sons of men have
appeared as conquerors and heroes, and have raised their country
to a high degree of glory, and conferred upon them much temporal
prosperity; but if Messiah was to be nothing more, we confess we
should not think him worth the having. We think of the Messiah as
the Being, in whom all the families of the earth shall be blessed, as
the restorer indeed of Israel, but also God’s salvation unto the end of
the earth. This is the doctrine which Christianity teaches, and which
is confirmed by the law and the prophets; and therefore we rejoice
that this great Deliverer has been born—that He came at first in
great humility to bruise the serpent’s head, and to lay down his life a
ransom for many. We remember that this blessed news, these glad
tidings of great joy, were brought to us by Jews; and, therefore,
feeling our deep obligations, we desire to show our gratitude by
inviting Israel to come and partake in our joy. We feel assured that
our joy is no illusion. Even the rabbies themselves bear witness that
the Messiah ought to have been born, and was born at the very time
in which we believe the Messiah to have been born. But if he was
born who was he? What other person can make any claim to the
Messiahship, but He whom we acknowledge? Is it reasonable to
believe, as the rabbies do, that God actually sent the Great Deliverer
down into this wretched world, and then took him away again,
without permitting him to accomplish his work? No; if ever he visited
this earth—and that he did visit it, both the ancient Jews and
Christians assert—he could not have left it again without bestowing
upon its inhabitants a remedy for their woes. The ancient rabbies
and the Christians both agree as to the time of Messiah’s birth, and
the fact of his birth in Bethlehem. Indeed the whole nation practically
showed their agreement with Christians, as to the time of Messiah’s
advent, by readily following every military adventurer, who laid claim
to the character of Redeemer. Even before the destruction of the
temple, multitudes had suffered by their credulity; but immediately
after the desolation, the people and the rabbies with one accord
followed Bar Chochba, and thereby showed the reality of their belief,
that that was about the time when Messiah ought to appear.
Judaism, therefore, teaches this doctrine—that God promised the
Messiah, that God fixed a time, that that time is past, and yet that
God did not keep his promise. Christianity, on the contrary,
acknowledges the promise, recognises the time, believes that
Messiah was born, but believes further that God fulfilled his word—
that Messiah was not carried away into Paradise, until he had
accomplished the work that was to be done at his first advent. Then,
indeed, we acknowledge that He ascended into heaven, and sitteth
at God’s right hand, from whence he will come again for the final
redemption of his people, and the establishment of the reign of
righteousness. The only real difference between us is, as to the
VERACITY of God. We believe that God did not, and could not, break
his word. Modern Judaism teaches that God broke his promise. It is
for rational beings to decide which doctrine is most agreeable to the
Divine character. For our own parts, we will rejoice in God’s
unchangeableness, and say, in the remembrance, that “His truth
endureth for ever.”
 No. LI.
SLAUGHTERING OF MEAT, CONTINUED.

According to the confessions of the rabbies themselves, the time for

the advent of Messiah is long since past, what is there then that
prevents the Jews from believing in him, who came at the appointed
time? The grand objection is, that the nation is still in captivity; they
say that Messiah ought to have given them liberty. The answer to
this objection is, that Messiah was willing, and is willing to this hour,
to give them liberty, but that they will not have it. The very first
condition of national liberty and independence is moral and
intellectual emancipation. No nation was ever yet enslaved until the
hearts and intellects of the people had first become the slaves of
corruption or superstition—and no nation that hugs to its heart the
chains of moral slavery, can ever be made free, nor could it retain its
liberty if it got it. When Messiah came, therefore, as he found the
Jewish nation already under the Roman yoke, the very first step was
to endeavour to emancipate their hearts and minds, and to deliver
them from that moral bondage, of which their national degradation
was only a consequence. This first step Messiah immediately took—
he protested against the superstitions of the oral law, and pointed
them to the perfect liberty of God’s written Word. But the nation
chose to retain the cause of their misfortunes, and to reject the
overtures of deliverance. If therefore they are still in a state of
national dependence, they must not cast the blame on God, and say
that He suffered the time to pass away without fulfilling his promise;
nor upon the Messiah, when they themselves refused to receive that
without which no national liberty can possibly exist. They chose to
give themselves, body and soul, as bond-slaves to the oral law, there
was, therefore, no possibility of national redemption. It would require
an act of omnipotent coercion, such as God does not employ, to
make a nation free against its will. But perhaps the Jews of the
present day will deny that they are in a state of moral and intellectual
slavery. We refer them, in reply, to the numerous proofs already
given in these papers, and especially the laws of ‫ שחיטה‬or
slaughtering, upon which we have a few words to add. Where in all
the world can a more wretched slave be found, than the man, who
himself, together with his family, is ready to perish of hunger, and yet
dare not partake of wholesome food, offered by the providence of
God, because his rabbinical task-masters say, No? But now take
another instance:—
, ‫כל טבח שלא בדק הסכין שלו ששוחט בה לפני חכם ושחט לעצמו בודקין אותה‬
‫אם נמצאת יפה ובדוקה מנדין אותו לפי שיסמוך על עצמו פעם אחרת ותהיה‬
‫ ואם נמצאת פגומה מעבירין אותו ומנדין אותו ומכריזין אל כל‬, ‫פגומה וישחוט בה‬
‫בשר ששחט שהוא טרפה ׃‬
“If a slaughterer, who has not had his slaughtering knife examined
before a wise man [a rabbi], slaughters by himself, his knife must be
examined. If it be found in good order and examined, he is to be
excommunicated, because he may depend upon himself another
time, when it has a gap in it and yet slaughter therewith. But, if it be
found to have a gap, he is to be deposed from his office, and
excommunicated, and proclamation is to be made, that all the meat
which he has slaughtered is carrion.” (Jad Hachazakah, Hilchoth
Sh’chitah, c. i. 26.) Here we have the same slavery and the same
cruel oppression. In the first place we see the intention to make the
Jews entirely dependent upon the rabbies. The Jews are not to eat
meat unless it be slaughtered as the rabbies direct, and the
slaughterer himself is not even to do that, which he knows to be right
according to the oral law, without the express sanction of the
rabbies. All are to be in bondage, not merely to the oral law, but to
the rabbi for the time being. They are to have no mind and no
judgment of their own. In the simplest concerns of life they are to be
entirely dependent upon the will and judgment of another. In the
second place, we see the determination to maintain this tyranny by
the severest punishments. The man who has slaughtered without
showing his knife to the rabbi, even though they have no fault to find
with him, is to be excommunicated—but if a rabbinic flaw in the knife
should be detected, then not only the man himself is to suffer, but
those who employed him, and also the Israelites themselves to be
deprived of food. All that he has slaughtered is to be declared unfit
for use. Who can deny that those who think their consciences bound
by such laws are in miserable bondage? Who, that has his senses
and God’s Word to guide them, can believe that a small gap in a
knife is sufficient to make meat unfit for food? Who ever saw a knife,
or even the finest razor that ever was manufactured, without a series
of such imperfections? Let a rabbi, who has just pronounced,
concerning a knife, that it has no gap in it, apply a microscope, and
he will soon find out that a knife without gaps never existed. He will
be convinced that the oral law requires what is impossible, and
therefore cannot possibly be from God. Who then can deny that
those who are bound by it, are the slaves of superstition? There
never was, and never will be in the world, such a thing as a knife
without the least possible gap, and consequently there never was,
and never will be, any meat fit for the food of a Rabbinist. The Jews
must therefore either give up the use of meat entirely, or they must
give up the oral law.
If the oral law were uniformly severe, and everywhere required that
its adherents should obtain the best possible evidence that their
meat was properly slaughtered: or in case they could not obtain this
evidence, that they should entirely abstain from meat, the
consistency of the doctrine would in some measure justify, or at least
excuse the credulity of the Jews. But this is not the case, its authors
felt the inconvenience of their own doctrine, and therefore relaxed
whenever it suited themselves. For instance, they say:—
‫הרי שראינו ישראל מרחוק ששחט והלך לו ולא ידענו אם יודע או אינו יודע הרי זו‬
‫ ואין ידוע אם‬, ‫ וכן האומר לשלוחו צא ושחוט לי ומצא הבהמה שחוטה‬, ‫מותרת‬
‫ שרוב הטצויין אצל שחיטה מומחין הן ׃‬, ‫שלוחו שחטה אם אחר הרי זו מותרת‬
“If we were to see an Israelite at a distance who had slaughtered a
beast, and he was to go his way, and we were ignorant of the fact
whether he understood the art or not, in that case the meat is lawful.
And in like manner, if a man should say to his messenger, Go and
slaughter for me, and should find the beast slaughtered, but it should
not be certain whether his messenger, or another person, had
slaughtered it, this also is lawful, for the majority of persons
concerned in slaughtering are skilful.” (Ibid., c. iv. 7.) This relaxation
shows how exceedingly inconvenient the doctrine was found, and
how unwilling the doctors were to bear inconvenience themselves.
No doubt cases often occurred in real life similar to those supposed.
An Israelite travelling might come to a town in which lived a small
congregation of Jews, and might wish to have some dinner, and
would of course wish to have it of lawful meat. The only satisfactory
way of obtaining it would be to go to the person who had slaughtered
it, and examine him as to his competency, but he might be absent, if
therefore he should be scrupulous, he would have to go without his
dinner; and the same thing would happen to a rich man, who might
send a messenger to a neighbouring town to have a beast killed for
him. The messenger might send back the meat by some one else,
and thus the owner would not have satisfactory evidence, that the
rabbinic laws had been observed. Here again the man who was rich
enough to do this, might have to go without his dinner, or to wait an
inconvenient time. The oral law has therefore provided in this case
that the meat is lawful for use without any further scruples. But this
decision shows of how little real importance all these precepts about
slaughtering are. If it be a sin to eat meat not properly killed, then it is
also a sin to eat meat, when there is no satisfactory evidence of this
fact. Whenever a man doubts about the right or wrong of any
particular action, he is certainly wrong if he does it. But if it be certain
that he may either do it or leave it undone without guilt, then that
action cannot be sinful. And as the rabbies here affirm, that men may
lawfully eat meat, concerning which they have no satisfactory
evidence that it has been lawfully slaughtered, it follows that the
rabbinic art cannot be of much value. Why then should a poor man
be starved if he does not eat, or flogged if he does eat, meat
slaughtered by a Gentile, when, if he had money to send a beast to
be killed, he might eat what was sent back, even though he had no
proof that the laws were kept? Indeed how are the poor and
unlearned ever to know, that they eat lawful meat? If they were even
to stand by, and see the operation performed, still, as being ignorant
of the rabbinic laws, they could not understand, and must therefore
take the matter entirely upon trust: and thus the mass of the nation,
the unlearned and the women, are made the blind slaves of laws
which they neither understand nor know; or rather of those who
expound those laws, for how can it be said that a man transgresses
that of which he does not know the right or wrong?
If the rabbies were all unanimous in their statement of what is and is
not lawful, the unanimity might in some degree excuse the Jews for
submitting to a yoke so grievous, and holding it that round the necks
of their brethren. They might urge the uniformity of the tradition as a
proof of its genuineness. But this cannot be pretended in the present
case. To this very hour the rabbies themselves are not agreed as to
what is, or what is not the oral law. We have just seen that if a man
send a messenger to have a beast slaughtered, and afterwards find
it slaughtered, that he may eat of it without asking any more
questions. This is the general principle, but as soon as it comes to
be applied in detail the rabbies differ. The Baal Turim thus states the
difference:—
‫וכתב הרמב׳׳ם דוקא שמצאה בבית אבל מצאה בשוק או באשפה שבבית אסורה‬
‫וכן כתב בעל העיטור וא׳׳א ז׳׳ל התיר אפילו באשפה שבבית ולא אסר אלא‬
‫באשפה שבשוק וכן הרשב׳׳א ׃‬
“Rambam has written expressly, In case that it should be found in
the house; but, if he find it in the street, or on the dunghill in the
house, it is forbidden. The Baal Haittur has given the same
judgment: but my lord my father of blessed memory says, the meat
is lawful, even if it be found on the dunghill in the house, and has not
pronounced it unlawful, except when found on the dunghill in the
street; and Rashba is of the same opinion.” (Joreh Deah., 1.) Here,
then, we have the most learned of the rabbies, disputing as to what
is the law; the one party pronouncing that to be unlawful which the
other party declares lawful. What, then, are the unlearned to do in
this case? Or how can it be said that there is an oral law which gives
the true meaning of the written law? Or, if there be an oral law, what
use is it, when it is itself a subject of dispute? Every one who has
looked into the oral law knows that this difference of opinion is by no
means a rare case; and that it cannot be said that the difference of
opinion is in matters of minor importance. Let us, for example,
consider the case of an Israelite who is accustomed to eat unlawful
meat, and does so to vex Israel—is it lawful to eat the meat which he
has killed?
, ‫כתב הרשב׳׳א שאין מוסרין לו בתחלה לשחוט אפילו אם ישראל עומד על גביו‬
‫ואם שחט בדיעבד כשר ע׳׳י בדיקת סכין תחילה או סוף וא׳׳א הרא׳׳ש ז׳׳ל כתב‬
‫שדינו כגוי ׃‬
“Rashba has written that it is not lawful to give him a beast
intentionally to slaughter, even if an Israelite should stand by. But if
he has slaughtered the beast, it may be declared lawful by means of
examining the knife, either at the beginning or at the end; and my
lord my father of blessed memory has written that in the case of such
a person the law is the same as in that of a Gentile.” (Ibid. 2.) Now
the difference here is very great and very important. The one opinion
says, that, under certain circumstances, such meat is lawful. The
other, that it is unlawful as that killed by a Gentile—that is, what the
one allows, the other pronounces to be so unlawful as to deserve the
flogging of rebellion, as we saw in No. 49. Here, then, is a case
involving severe corporal punishment, and yet the rabbies are not
agreed as to which is the law. How, then, can men of sense and
reflection give themselves up to a system, the doctors of which
cannot agree upon a question so simple as this, What sort of food is
lawful, and what is unlawful? and who, nevertheless, require
unlimited obedience under the heaviest penalties temporal and
eternal? The oral law does not suffer a wise man to be contradicted,
and declares that all their sayings are “the words of the living God;”
and yet here they contradict one another so widely, that if a man
follow the one, he will be sentenced to a flogging by the other—and if
from fear of the flogging he should agree with the latter, he will then
be contradicting the former, and thereby incur the sentence of
excommunication, and even run a risk of losing his soul. But in every
case he must give up his judgment and his reason, and submit to be
led by those, who are still disputing about the right road: yea, and if
he would obey the oral law, must confess that they are both in the
right. If this be not moral and intellectual slavery of the worst kind, we
have yet to learn the meaning of these words. It will not be a
pertinent reply to say that Christians also differ in opinion on
important points. We confess that they do, and will continue to do so,
as long as they continue to be fallible men: but then these persons
do not profess to have an oral law given by God in order to preserve
them from a wrong interpretation. There is one Christian Church that
has followed the example of the rabbies in this particular, and has
therefore fallen into many of their absurdities. Difference of opinion
amongst those who make no such pretensions is no argument
against the truth of the original records, whence both professedly
draw their religion. Two men may differ as to the sense of a verse in
the law of Moses, and yet we know that the verse itself contains the
truth. But when each of these persons tells us that his interpretation
is an inspired tradition, and that both, though contradicting each
other, are equally true and correct, then it is evident that they say not
only what is false, but what is absurd, and that they are labouring
under a delusion. If it be a mere speculative delusion it is to be
deplored—but if it be a practical delusion, involving the happiness
and welfare of thousands, it must be combated and exposed—and
this is precisely the case with the oral law. The particular part of it
which we have now been considering seriously affects the temporal
comfort of many thousands of the poor in every part of the world.
The general principles enslave the minds of the whole nation, and
thus prevent the state of happiness and glory which the prophets
have promised. The Jewish nation is in a state of dispersion, and in
some parts of the world victims of a cruel oppression, simply
because they are the willing slaves of superstition. Until an
intellectual and moral change is effected, they never can appear as
“the peculiar people, the kingdom of priests, the holy nation.” High
and holy is their destiny, and great is the providential mercy of God
in still preserving them, when they refuse obstinately to fulfil it. But
neither their destiny nor God’s forbearance can be of any avail, until
they reassert the glorious liberty of the children of God. The chains
of Rabbinism must be broken, and the mild yoke of Messiah taken
upon their shoulders, before national independence and liberty can
return. How could a nation exist, whose moral and intellectual
energies are all crampt by the endless subtleties of the rabbies?
How could a people maintain national liberty whilst they are such
perfect slaves to superstition as to believe that traditions, which are